Thursday 24th January 2013

Newspaper attitudes towards the BBC are getting a bit ridiculous now. Whatever decision the Beeb makes the papers will criticise it. If they broadcast a ten year old kids show with an allusion to Jimmy Savile then they will be castigated, if they censor the word "nigger" from a pre-watershed showing of Fawlty Towers they will similarly get it in the neck. They hold back on naming a paedophile before all the evidence is in and they get in trouble, they name a paedophile before all the evidence is in and they get in trouble.
I suspect that had the BBC not censored the word "nigger" from Fawlty Towers that the papers might have decided to have a go at them for that as well. In fact I am certain of it. To keep the tabloids on the straight and narrow I think that they should have to publish their take on every possible problem or controversy in advance so they can't just make their decision based on what the BBC has done.
Or the BBC can just accept that they don't really need to worry about what the tabloids say because it will always be negative and just get on with doing whatever they want. They could use this negativity as a strength, just issue a statement saying that they know they can't win so they're not going to bother trying. They could start putting out hard core pornography before the evening news. And maybe during the evening news. It would be ace.
What the BBC has to realise is that it has many, many more viewers than any single newspaper (in fact more than them all put together) and it should use this advantage. What I suggest is that every time the corporation has a tricky decision to make regarding what it does and doesn't broadcast it rings the Daily Mail and asks them what they think should be done. Let's say the Daily Mail says that the word "nigger" should be broadcast pre-watershed because of the context and classic nature of Fawlty Towers. The BBC does as they say and then opens the news with the headline, "Daily Mail endorses broadcast of the word nigger" and have pundits lining up to criticise the paper for its offensiveness. But if the Daily Mail argues for censorship the first headline on the news is "Daily Mail censors classic TV show" and the same pundits line up to say how the clip was fine in context. Thus the Daily Mail can run the moral agenda of the country and the BBC can mock them for it and the Daily Mail will have no come back. Let them make the impossible decisions. Pre-empt and win, that is my advice. Stand up and fight back BBC. Hoist these fuckers by their own petard.
See I got through a whole blog without mentioning the cats. Damn. I think Smithers may have a problem. He keeps following me into the loo and today whilst I was in mid-stream he jumped into the toilet bowl and tried to drink my wee, whilst being hit in the head with my wee. I have never weed on anyone before (it's not my bag), apart from myself and maybe accidentally on my parents when they were changing my nappy (I was 28 years old at the time). I've only known Smithers for three days and he's right in there trying to get me to give him a golden shower whilst he laps up my already deposited urine. He is a cat pervert. We have much to teach him about right and wrong.
He didn't even seem to mind when we washed his head (the wee had pretty much bounced off and I had stopped weeing the minute I realised what was happening). Most cats hate getting wet. This one seems to be actively seeking out moisture no matter how salty it might be. And if nothing else I can probably hire him out to men who like weeing on snow white cats and then have the cats drink their wee. If you're interested in that service do email me with the subject line "I like weeing on snow white cats and then have the cats drink my wee". I will not pass on your details to the authorities.